lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [tip:sched/urgent] sched: Restore printk sanity
From
Date
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 19:45:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar said:

> - in the last stable kernel, v2.6.32, still more new printk()s were
> introduced than pr_*() lines:
>
> $ git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep '^+.*\<pr_' | wc -l
> 2016
> $ git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep '^+.*\<printk' | wc -l
> 3531

Ahem. That's not introduced, that's 'added or modified'.

% git log -p v2.6.31..v2.6.32 | grep -C 5 '^+.*\<pr_' | head
- * In case of failure continue with no timer. */
+ /* Test if the external timer can be actually used.
+ * In case of failure continue without timer. */
if (unlikely((stmmac_open_ext_timer(dev, priv->tm)) < 0)) {
- pr_warning("stmmaceth: cannot attach the HW timer\n");
+ pr_warning("stmmaceth: cannot attach the external timer.\n");
tmrate = 0;
priv->tm->freq = 0;
priv->tm->timer_start = stmmac_no_timer_started;
priv->tm->timer_stop = stmmac_no_timer_stopped;
Meanwhile, the fact that there's only about a 2-to-1 difference in patches when
there's a 6-to-1 difference in existing code tells me that proportionally,
there is *more* activity with pr_foo variants than printk.

printk: 3531 hits in 61126 uses = 5.7% churn
pr_foo: 2016 hits in 10861 uses = 18.5% churn

The numbers need much deeper analysis to make any sort of real statistical
conclusion here...

>
> An estimated completion of the 'conversion' to pr_*() to be in infinite numbe
r
> of years.
>
> > [...] just removing the "sched:" would be better for consistency.
> >
> > Or alternatively... deprecate pr_*?
>
> Or alternatively, my favorite: let people who write the code use whichever
> variant they prefer.
>
> Ingo

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-27 01:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans